________________
240
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1891
The name of Antiochus reappears in the second edict, Everywhere, in my empire and also among foreign peoples (práchaita) such as the Chôdas, the Pandyas, Satiyaputa and Kêtalaputa, as far as Tambapanņi, Antiochus, the king of the Yavanas, and the kings who are his neighbours, 31 every where has Piyadasi spread abroad remedies of two kinds33...... everywhere useful plants have been imported and planted. So also with regard to roots and trees. On the roads, wells have been sunk and trees have been planted, for the convenience of animals and men.'
The last passage is most vague of all. I mean that phrase in the edict of SahasarâmRûpnâth which declares that the proclamations (sávana) of the king have for their aim, that all great and small may display their zeal, and that foreign peoples (amta) themselves may be instructed.'
I have laid all these extracts before the eyes of the reader, as it is important to compare them carefully in order to decide what conclusions may follow from them.
—
In the first place, one cannot fail to observe two groups of peoples who are evidently intentionally distinguished. They comprise, on the one part :
2ND EDICT.
The Chôdas, the Pandyas, Satiyaputa, Kêtalaputa, Tambapanņi, Antiochus and his neighbouring kings.
And on the other part:
5TH EDICT.
The Yavanas, the Kambojas, the Gandharas the Râstikas, and the Pêtênikas.
13TH EDICT. Antiochus, the four kings who are to the north of (or beyond) Antiochus, Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas, Alexander, and, to the south, the Chôdas, the Pandyas, Tambapanņi, and the Hida-king (?).
13TH EDICT.
The Visas, the Vajjis, the Yavanas, the Kambojas, the Nâbhakas, the Nâbhapamtis, the Bhôjas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras, and the Pulindas.
The members of the second set are distinguished by the epithet aparantas,33 that is to say 'westerns,' while those of the first set are called pratyantas or simply antas, and it is permissible to believe that it is particularly to these that the instructions given by the king, in the second detached edicts of Dhauli and Jangada, refer.
giving. The passage cited in the text shews an instructive shade of difference; among all the religions, the dhammamahêmátras must occupy themselves with the well-being of the dhammayutas. This refers to the dominions of Piyadasi: amongst aparântas, who were, as we shall just now see, less strictly dependent on the king, they had to watch that they met no obstacles, or in other words that they enjoyed complete religious liberty. This observation agrees exactly with the sense which I have maintained for dhammayuta. The punctuation which Dr. Bühler proposes after apolamt appears to me to be inadmissible. It is not possible to construe y/nakan: b jogadhalinam with hitasukhaye, because, in Dh., we have the locative gamdhalêsu. This locative shews clearly that the genitive has only been introduced in the other texts to avoid an accumulation of locatives in the same sentence. It becomes certain that yonakambijagaṁdhalanam depends on bambhanibhésu, etc. As for making it depend, as genitive or as locative, on dhammayutasa, that is repugnant both to the ordinary flow of the construction and to the analogy of parallel sentences: they all commence with the indication of the object or of the scene of action imposed upon the dhammamabamatras: savapásmḍêsu.... bamdhanabadhass.... hida cha... iyam dhammanisitati....
31 Dr. Bühler contests the reading såmipa in G., but his reading adminam cannot be admitted. After a new direct inspection of the stones I see no reading more probable than sdmtpd, so that I can but abide by my interpretation.
32 The sense of medicine' and not of hospital' (Bühler) is alone admissible here. Not only is there proof wanting of the equivalence of chikichha and of argyaidla, but the erection of hospitals by Piyadasi in Greek territories is hardly likely the analogy of the words following, viz. roots, medicinal plants, useful trees, is altogether in favour of the first translation. We should, I think, adhere to it.
88 It is impossible to take, with the learned Pandit Bhagwanlal Indrajt, áparâmta as an ethnic term designating some particular province (J. Bo. Br. R. A. 8., XV, p. 274); the expression ye vapi amñé parâmtå forbids this. It should not be forgotten that the spelling, at least at G. and at Dh., is aparata; by this long & the word is marked, just like prachamta, as a secondary derivative. It may be remarked, en passant, how well the special meaning attributed to aparanta (Cf. Lassen, I, 649; II, 932) agrees with the position which I assign, under the sceptre of Piyadasi, to the populations compressed under this term.
